Comments (130)

• Barry Loberfeld

  "Capitalism serves the Republicans the way Communism served Stalin: a symbolic distraction to keep you hoping, voting, and coughing up money."

  I'm not sure I'm with Lew on this point. The Republicans have never instituted capitalism, while the Bolsheviks did indeed establish socialism — real socialism.

  Published: November 11, 2009 7:57 AM

• Mrhuh

  I once told a friend that centuries from now, people will look back upon the theses centuries as being a new dark ages.

  Published: November 11, 2009 8:11 AM

• fundamentalist

  The survey also reveals why the US is so hated throughout the world--socialism. Democrats convinced Americans that the world loved the US until Bush became president. But I read an essay from Mises last week written in the early 1950's in which he credited the international love affair with socialism for the rabid anti-Americanism of that decade.

  Socialism is natural to mankind. It fits well with the natural envy that all people possess and the desire to blame the rich for their poverty and blame anyone else for their problems. Shortly after the fall of communism in the Russia, a writer who had lived in Russia for a decade and married a Russian woman said that Russians would rather everyone be starving to death poor than have their neighbor do better than them. That describes most people in the world, Americans included. Socialism is the natural outgrowth of the dark side of human nature.

  Published: November 11, 2009 8:24 AM

• Fed Up

  "It might have been 99% in support of socialist tyranny."

  Show us the math, it might have been 45% in favor of free market capitalism if it wasn't for awkward and weird looking eccentric intellectuals.

  We need charismatic, young, good looking and seductive representatives of free market capitalism.

  Most of humanity are pleasure seeking morons and highly emotional creatures fueled by strong sensations.

  Most of humanity hate logic, hate reason and hate ugly intellectuals.

  We need a better PR strategy. Rothbard looks like a halloween big-glasses-and-big-noze carricature.

  How can you expect that logic and reason deprived individuals associate with such esthetically challenged individuals ?

  That's why libertarianism remains fringe. It needs to "dumb down" to the average idiotic voter and this requires good looks and pleasureable emotions.

  I'm certain that if you replace intellectuals with charismatic and good looking partying promoters, you will gain more converts.

  And use women too because most men have their brains in the pants.

  Published: November 11, 2009 8:46 AM

• Fed Up

  A lot of black voters voted for Obama because he's black, but then WE the white persons are racist.

  A lot of white voters voted for Obama because he looks better than John McCain.

  A lot of voters voted for Obama because Oprah told them to.

  This is high-school popularity, it has nothing to do with logic nor intellectuals.

  We need to beat the socialists at their own game by using charismatic and good looking advocates of free market capitalism.

  Published: November 11, 2009 8:49 AM

• Beefcake the Mighty

  Hey Fed Up, let's see your mug shot.

  What a douche-bag.

  Published: November 11, 2009 8:55 AM

• Fed Up

  Beefcake,

  "Hey Fed Up, let's see your mug shot."

  I'm ugly too, but not as ugly as those intellectuals.

  I'm not a douchebage I'm realistic. Most individuals are superficial pleasure seeking morons fueling on emotions.

  So if you want to sell free market capitalism, you have to employ good looking charismatic people that will pitch the pleasurable side of capitalism.

  Otherwhize, it will never work.

  Published: November 11, 2009 9:07 AM

• Mike

  "ancient fairy tale"

  Mr. Rockwell hits the nail on the head with those three words.

  Humans are religious creatures. This is probably an evolutionary offshoot of primitive pack instincts, where a pack is ruled by a powerful alpha male to whom all others are slavishly devoted. As humans developed the ability to reason, and as societies got larger and thus the typical commoner (or "beta") became more personally disconnected from the alpha, the alpha needed more and more ideological justification for his rule. This was not actually difficult to do, since the pack instincts were still there. The beta wants to know his place in the social order. He is eager to believe what he must to maintain social cohesion. Therefore, nobody needed to be rationally convinced of the "divine right" of kings; this "right" needed simply to be asserted.

  But a problem occurred. We kept getting smarter. In the industrialized world, the old-school religions have given way. It is at this point easy to point out all the flaws in clinging to the ancient religious texts (all rationalizations to the contrary aside).

  Nevertheless, our religious/pack instincts remain powerful. The idea of relinquishing all personal responsibility and submitting oneself to the care of a higher power is still an extremely powerful driving force of "betas" (psychologically speaking, neurotics - which are the vast majority) everywhere. As many modern philosophers have pointed out, most people simply don't want freedom. They want panem et circenses, and are happy to do what they're told in order to get them.

  And these people are insecure. Terribly insecure. Having lost the ability to conquer death through metaphysical belief, they desperately but ultimately futilely attempt to conquer it in this world. Hence the "right" to such services of others as health care. These people would destroy civilization if only they could stay alive and comfortable for a few more years.

  The fact that the era of state worship is also the era of secularism is no coincidence at all. Statism is a replacement for religion, in the sense of religion as a belief in supernatural deities. But in the sense of religion as the consequence of the instinctual need of the beta to devote himself to something in exchange for perfect security and the abolition of death, statism is religion. It triggers the same emotions. It punishes heretics in exactly the same way. It is intellectually defended via desperate apologetics rather than actual reason (which would invalidate it).

  Statism is the religion of the modern world.

  Published: November 11, 2009 9:10 AM

• Horst Muhlmann

  A number of countries were conspicuous by their absence in that poll.

  What were the results in China, Hong Kong and Singapore? Being the BBC, I doubt anyone from the Far East was asked, since they might not give the answers the BBC wanted to hear.

  Published: November 11, 2009 9:14 AM

• David C

  This just confirms what I already suspected. The USA is shit, but is still better than most the rest of the planet. Here's a link to more detailed results.

  http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/11_november/09/country_findings.pdf

  Published: November 11, 2009 9:26 AM

• Mike

  I should add:

  In my last post I made an implication of a linkage between the sociobiological concept of alpha and beta, and the psychoanalytic concept of neurosis. If you're interested in reading what I read that caused me to make that connection in my mind, read some Karen Horney, in particular Our Inner Conflicts and Self-Analysis. She doesn't talk about alpha and beta, but she talks a lot about neurosis, and if you're familiar with the former terms, you will find that the correspondence is very striking. Psychoanalysis' name may be tarnished, but it's not because of Horney. Give her a fair shot.

  Also good reads if you're a timid male interested in becoming confident and courageous and thus attracting more women :-).

  Published: November 11, 2009 9:42 AM

• fundamentalist

  Mike, you sound like Carson in "Mozart was a Red".

  Published: November 11, 2009 9:42 AM

• JL Bryan

  I think socialism also naturally appeals to those who don't understand economics. We share freely with our family and friends, so why not try to implement that on a society-wide scale? Mises refuted this with his book Socialism, but relatively few people have read Mises.

  Published: November 11, 2009 9:49 AM

• Mike

  @fundamentalist: Only in your imagination, good sir.
  

  Published: November 11, 2009 9:54 AM

• Kakugo

  Mr Rockwell is absolutely right in talking about "Triumph of Socialism".
  There's also a Latin phrase that sounds very appropriate in these days when the new Politburo flocked on Berlin to utter streams of empty rhetoric: Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit (vanquished Greece conquered the fiercely brave winner).
  That's what the USSR did to the "West".
  But people will never learn: they want Socialism, but they also want free-market goods like luxury cars, advanced cell phones, fashionable clothes. Let's see our central planners supplying them with all of this...
  

  Published: November 11, 2009 10:09 AM

• Wealth

  JL Bryan,

  "We share freely with our family and friends,"

  You said it, FREELY.

  Under socialism however, you don't share freely, you share forcefully.

  Under free market capitalism, everybody is free to share freely. Under socialism, everybody is FORCED to share whatever the government tells them to.

  Design a socialist system in which people are free to share or not and I will buy it. But then, it would not be socialism, it would be capitalism.

  Published: November 11, 2009 10:35 AM

• Horst Muhlmann

  David C:

  Thanks for the link for the full report. I didn't find that link on the Beeb's page.

  It turns out that China was included in the full report but not the original news blurb, but not Hong Kong and Singapore.

  I would view the poll results vis-a-vis the Soviets with suspicion with the Chicoms. If you visit the Jiangxi provincial office, the bureaucrats still have Soviet flags on their desks. People would still be reluctant to speak ill of the Soviets there.

  Jiangxi province, in southeast China, was a Maoist stronghold during the civil war. As such, it is a poor province that borders two rich provinces (including Guangdong!).

  Published: November 11, 2009 10:41 AM

• Cosmin

  My problem with this article is the line: "millions freed from socialist slavery". They weren't. They were taken over by the fascist slave-masters. Once you see that, you'll understand why they can very validly say that life under Soviet rule wasn't that bad comparatively.
  The rest of the article actually supports this point of view by illustrating how far removed from capitalism the present system actually is.

  Published: November 11, 2009 10:47 AM

• Deefburger

  @fundamentalist

  "Socialism is natural to mankind. It fits well with the natural envy that all people possess and the desire to blame the rich for their poverty and blame anyone else for their problems. Shortly after the fall of communism in the Russia, a writer who had lived in Russia for a decade and married a Russian woman said that Russians would rather everyone be starving to death poor than have their neighbor do better than them. That describes most people in the world, Americans included. Socialism is the natural outgrowth of the dark side of human nature."

  Bravo! Well said.

  And like I've said before, Capitalism places it's trust in the better side of human nature. Socialism on the other hand trusts no one but their political elite.

  Published: November 11, 2009 11:07 AM

• EIS

  Cosmin said: "My problem with this article is the line: "millions freed from socialist slavery". They weren't. They were taken over by the fascist slave-masters. Once you see that, you'll understand why they can very validly say that life under Soviet rule wasn't that bad comparatively."

  Actual Marxism was implemented by Lenin in the 20s, the result? Millions starved on the streets, fled the cities, and resorted to hunting wild game for survival. Fascism is nothing more than Marxism slightly altered. It's the result of socialists around the world realizing that pure Marxism leads to an abrupt destruction of the economic system, and completely retards, in fact reverses, the division of labor and capital.

  Socialist intellectuals and political leaders realize that their love affair for Marxism had to be slightly altered. This is why the German Historical school (intellectual center of continental European economics) went from die-hard Marxists to praising Hitler as the second coming of Christ, and promoting his new form of socialism.

  After Fascism disintegrated, socialism yet again morphed, turning into what we have today, namely, the welfare state (worldwide).

  I cringe whenever people say we've made progress. The fact of the matter is that we simply have not. The socialists are just as powerful today as they ever where, if not stronger. Their welfare states collapse and they get to blame markets, further consolidating their power, and discrediting the so-called 'capitalist system.'

  China is hailed as the future, the same way that Bismark's Germany was, Lenin's USSR, and Mussolini's Italy.
  

  Published: November 11, 2009 11:18 AM

• Sean

  I agree with what Mike says above. Tangentially, on religion / the religious mind vs. atheism, I love love love me some Christopher Hitchens. Mr. Hitchens is brilliant in his explication of what he identifies as the human impulse to self abrogation through the big-brother of religion/theism.

  Interestingly, surprisingly, and sadly Mr. Hitchens utterly fails to take his analysis one step further and make the simple intellectual connection between the self abrogating impulse and the widespread and blind devotion to the big-brother of government.

  Published: November 11, 2009 11:28 AM

• Mrhuh

  Part of the problem was that so-called defenders of capitalism have also been big warmongers and central-banker cronies. Thank God for the likes of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff who have actually helped to bring back the classical liberal support for peace and commerce together.

  Published: November 11, 2009 11:30 AM

• Shay

  Wealth, also when we share with friends and family, we will stop if a particular member takes advantage of us. So friends and family tend to engage in mutually-beneficial arrangements, with the defectors getting excluded from the group. When asking favors, we try to gauge the cost to the friend/family member, withdrawing the request if it seems more costly than the benefit to us and what we might provide in return at a later time. Friends/family can act as insurance, with the well-being of a member contributing back in the same way, a sort of investment as well.

  Even the above introduces inefficiencies, but given our familiarity with friends/family, a fair amount of information can be exchanged. How can any of this be carried out on a wide scale, as socialism would need to do? With socialism, you lose the mechanism to keep people in check, and have much less information for centrlized resource allocation.
  

  Published: November 11, 2009 11:38 AM

• George Jones

  Socialism is natural to mankind

  No it is not! It only seems that way because it is the status quo.

  And what "Fed up " has stated actually has a lot of truth to it.It is one of the most fundamental laws of economics.People will desire what they deem as valuable.Sex sells -- always has, and most certainly, always will.Of those high percentage of people who support more government ,most of them cannot fully defend this assertion with actual historical facts.Many of them are simply parrots.So if you want the idea of Capitalism to be popular,you must use the same popularising techniques that pro-staters use.
  Make it sexy.

  Published: November 11, 2009 11:54 AM

• Sean

  The reason why I say "sadly" above regarding Mr. Hitchens is that he is a highly charismatic and powerfully intelligent intellectual. Someone such as Mr. Hitchens - who is a very appealing personality - would be an outstanding advocate for economic freedom @Fed Up and @George Jones.

  Published: November 11, 2009 12:00 PM

• Walt D.

  @fundamentalist:
  
  An interesting comment about socialism appealing to the dark side of human nature.
  
  Thou shall not steal.
  
  Thou shall not bear false witness.
  
  Thou shall not covet.
  
  While organized Christian religion may not have had a stellar track record, it is very clear why Karl Marx was so hostile towards religion - it preaches against the fundamental tenets of socialism.
  

  Published: November 11, 2009 12:02 PM

• Mike

  "While organized Christian religion may not have had a stellar track record, it is very clear why Karl Marx was so hostile towards religion - it preaches against the fundamental tenets of socialism."

  Not to mention it means people acknowledge a source of good and wisdom higher than the state.

  That's actually sort of the same thing. :-)

  Published: November 11, 2009 12:07 PM

• fundamentalist

  Sean: "Mr. Hitchens is brilliant in his explication of what he identifies as the human impulse to self abrogation through the big-brother of religion/theism."

  Hitchens is such an intellectual feather weight that few Christians bother to rebut him. He does nothing but microwave old, worn-out and defeated atheist ideas. He only seems new and brilliant to people who know nothing of the history of the debate over the past two centuries or the history of philosophy.

  What Hitchens calls the "impulse to self abrogation through the big-brother of religion/theism" could as easily be explained as the impulse for order and desire for truth. When you play the game of guessing the motives of people, you have to understand that you're limited only by your imagination. Hitchens has a very limited imagination, which is why he can grasp only one motive, the one that he would like all religious people and socialists to have because it makes his argument win by default. And he can smear religion and socialism with one brush through guilt by association.

  Hitchens needs to explain why socialism was dreamed up by atheists, championed by atheists, and still the choice of the majority of atheists. Arguing that socialism is nothing but the replacement of one religion with another fails on many levels. In the first place, socialist atheists consider themselves atheists, not religious. For Hitchens to claim that they don't know their own thoughts and motives as well as he does is just plain arrogance. He seems to think he is a Freud with psychic powers.

  In the second place, Hitchens is playing the old shell game by using two definitions of religion and switching between them when it's convenient for his argument. The definition of religion is the belief in a transcendent being, but Hitchens uses the distorted definition that religion is merely devotion to a cause. That's a typical socialist technique and worthy of Hitchen's intellect. If Hitchens were an honest man and stuck to one definition, he would have to conclude that either religious people or socialists are not religious. That's why he needs two definitions of religious.

  It's trivial and dishonest to define terms so that your argument wins by default, but that's the chief methodology of small minds like Hitchens.

  Published: November 11, 2009 12:10 PM

• Jayant

  Two decades back, Indians did not trust their government. These days it seems people want more socialist structures. Economic progress has happened, but that ironically seems to have made people more idiotic.

  Published: November 11, 2009 12:12 PM

• fundamentalist

  PS, Hitchens equates religion with "the human impulse to self abrogation." If that self-abrogation applies to an idea, such as the state, then the self-abrogation of atheists to the idea of atheism would make atheists religious, too. See the utter nonsense you get when you start changing definitions of words to suit your purpose?
  

  Published: November 11, 2009 12:16 PM

• fundamentalist

  Walt D: "While organized Christian religion may not have had a stellar track record, it is very clear why Karl Marx was so hostile towards religion..."

  Exactly! And it's no mistery for those who know history that our modern liberty and capitalism came from Christianity. Socialism came from atheists. However much atheists want to complain, those are historical facts. Check out Hayek's "Counter-Revolution in Science" for the origins of socialism.

  Published: November 11, 2009 12:20 PM

• fundamentalist

  PS, For our atheist libertarian friends, I'm sorry to come down so hard on atheists. Libertarianism welcomes everyone who loves liberty and I hope you can persuade more atheists to join. However, attacking religion the way some atheists do drives away religious supporters of liberty and there are far more of them than there are atheist supporters.

  Published: November 11, 2009 12:23 PM

• Sean A

  I think the biggest mistake is believing capitalism is some designed system. Capitalism is the result of the evolution of society; from dividing labor and exchange to better each persons standard of living. Without such benefits society would have never formed. Yet now we are so devolved that the absence of central government would inevitably lead to a "war of all against all"? In denouncing capitalism, they are denouncing the very nature, evolution, and reason for human society. They are implying that individuals are incapable of making appropriate value judgments and their decisions should be made by those superior, all-knowing, elitists in government who clearly know what's best for me better than i know for myself. However, the true absurdity of this logic is brushed over with a heavy layer of ideology distributed through propaganda and pleasant sounding rhetoric. My, how easily manipulated the masses are.

  Published: November 11, 2009 12:49 PM

• Mr Eko

  Sean A,

  Indeed.

  Lew said it best:
  “Markets do not exist as a ‘policy’; they are the de-facto result of respecting rights to person and property.”

  Published: November 11, 2009 1:03 PM

• fundamentalist

  Greed, theft, envy, covetousness all come naturally to mankind. No one needs to teach them. We have to teach children their opposites and the self-discipline to restrain themselves. In the same way, socialism appeals to the greed, theft, envy and covetousness that comes naturally, so people naturally gravitate to it. Capitalism, like good morals, must be taught to every generation; socialism doesn't. If we miss one generation, capitalism falls apart.

  Published: November 11, 2009 1:27 PM

• Wealth

  Fundamentalist,

  We just think that religion is incompatible with libertarianism because of the authority of God and the many arbitrary restrictions on freedom that the bible and religion imposes and the threat of going to hell if you don't surrender your life, independence, money etc. to the church and to God.

  A Libertarian could willfully decide to do those things, but if he doesn't not feel threatened by hell-fire, then he doesn't take his religion seriously so when practice it in the first place.

  When I was a Christian, it was only the fear of hell that kept me in church, later on I rejected this and started to educate myself and now I am free an no longer fear hell so there is no point for me to be a Christian.

  I am an atheist.

  I think that Christianity and all religions are extremely devious and dishonest as they create dogma in order to compell men to act "morally".

  Instead of making hell fire threats to compell people to act morally, they should teach men to use their reason to act reasonably.

  Yes letting people think by themelves comprises risks, but the rewards are well worth that risk.

  People wil commit atrocities in the name of Jesus or Allah or whatever when they are deprived the freedom to think and reason by themselves.

  Generally, the freedom to view the world as you wish without the threat of hell make better people than religion.

  And also, by teaching people to use their reason instead of fear of hell, this puts pressure on the authorities to act reasonably themselves.

  As long as people are affraid to go to hell, they will overlook the authority and the government's own "sins".

  But when people are free to use their own reason, they start to demand the same standard to authority.

  That's why most Libertarians are atheists, because they can't stand the double-standard that religion entails and they can't stand the authoritarian nature of religion.

  Published: November 11, 2009 1:37 PM

• Walt D.

  @fundamentalist
  
  "Those who believe in nothing will believe anything."
  
  While liberals may be atheists, they are not Nietzschists. ("I believe in nothing."). They just choose belief systems such as political correctness and environmentalism as a substitute for a traditional religious belief system. Unfortunately, the state-run education plays the role of Jesuits in the teaching of these belief systems.

  Published: November 11, 2009 1:38 PM

• Wealth

  "Greed, theft, envy, covetousness all come naturally to mankind."

  Under capitalism, greed, theft, envy and covetousness are allowed, provided you are ready to face alone their risks and their consequences.

  There is nothing wrong at being a greedy speculator on wall-street, provided you are ready to loose all your money without asking for a bailout.

  There is nothing wrong at being a theive, provided you are ready to accept the risk of getting shot dead by the ones you propose to rob.

  Under true capitalism, greed is tempered by fear.

  Under socialism, fear is removed. The governement is always there to bail you out of your mistakes and is always there to disarm your victims using gun control.

  Socialism is the greedy's and the theif's paradise. Because socialism will bail you out if you loose everything and will disarm your victims so you can more easily rob them.

  Published: November 11, 2009 1:40 PM

• Wealth

  @Fundamentalist,

  ""Those who believe in nothing will believe anything.""

  I always tought that if you can talk someone into Christianity, you can talk him into anything.

  Published: November 11, 2009 1:42 PM

• Vadim

  there is a very simple argument: with all this advance in science and technology and increased productivity most people still have to work 8 hours a day for miserable payment to strangle to make ends meet.
  There is a general dishonest speculation about socialism. Someone is trying hard to attribute socialism as being synonymic to tyranny and oppression of freedom. Whenever more equal distribution of society wealth is mentioned then someone start screaming about socialism, threat to liberty and labor camps.
  But in fact socialism is not meant to limit freedom. Socialism means that high minimum salary of working people has to be controlled by governments and that the rich have to pay much higher taxes. No one is going to limit your freedom to travel and live you private life the way you like.
  Those proponents of free market and free trade praise free trade when things are good and profit flows in their pockets and want government to intervene and bail them out when their reckless greediness destroys underlying society forcing most people go heavily into debt to maintain at least some standard of living. These enormous bailouts out of taxpayers pockets have nothing to do with free market and beneficial only to the wealthy and mighty.

  
  

  Published: November 11, 2009 1:46 PM

• Mike D.

  Hardly a triumph, Lew. Just because a large number of people in the Bay Area support the Oakland Raiders doesn't make them a good team.

  Published: November 11, 2009 1:57 PM

• Mike

  I hold anybody who opposes statism to be an ally, especially in debate on these boards. I do not intend to engage anybody in a theism vs. atheism debate on Mises.org.

  But I feel faced with the need to explain myself in this comment thread. Any atheist is going to have in his mind an idea of why religion is a universal phenomenon. That it is, is undisputable, which means to an atheist concerned with truth this demands an explanation. Any atheist can probably give you one if he's thought enough about it.

  As an atheist, I see things from the perspective of an atheist, and write my posts from the perspective of an atheist. And as it turns out, my explanations of statism go hand-in-hand with my beliefs about religion. So that is what I talk about when I try to explain the phenomenon of statism.

  I do so in the spirit of sharing. The hope is to throw some new ideas into the ring, for people with worldviews similar to mine to digest. I am not trying to cram atheism down anybody's throats, but I am not going to refrain from sharing my ideas about statism in order to not offend potential religious libertarians with whom my ideas may conflict. I feel no need to convince anybody in particular; the assumption that a few lurkers will read my posts and say "hmm, interesting" is enough for me.

  Published: November 11, 2009 2:09 PM

• Knight

  @ Wealth
  "When I was a Christian, it was only the fear of hell that kept me in church, later on I rejected this and started to educate myself and now I am free an no longer fear hell so there is no point for me to be a Christian."

  Respectfully I would like to say for the sake of your soul, it is not about you. It is about God. If you were only a Christian because hell sounded like a horrible home for eternity and heaven was better option, you were clearly thinking with a humanistic worldview. One day if we make it to heaven we will be sitting at the feet of Jesus Christ, doing work for the Lord. Now that is an awesome reason to be a Christian.
  Humanistic worldview= man is the measure
  Biblical worldview= God is the measure
  
  Another note I would like to add is that the pilgrims tried socialism. It didn't work for them either. William Bradford's of Plymouth Plantation pg. 115 gives a detailed account of the experience.
  (reprint from Vision Forum)

  Published: November 11, 2009 2:15 PM

• Mike

  I should add that in my personal life, I enjoy the company of religious people more than of (most) atheists. Most atheists I know are left-liberals who complain about every little personal problem like it's a major injustice, while my religious friends tend to do the best they can with the lives they have. It's not hard to decide who's more pleasant to be around. The (most) atheists I know act like the world revolves around them, while the religous people I know do not (for obvious reasons). However, I generally do not associate with evangelicals (they quickly tire of me too), so that may be part of it.

  Published: November 11, 2009 2:16 PM

• Wealth

  Knight,

  There is NO measure !

  Published: November 11, 2009 2:20 PM

• Wealth

  Mike,

  "Most atheists I know are left-liberals"

  I'm an ATHEIST gun loving free market capitalist, private property advocate and individualist.

  I guess that's why I'm hated by both sides, LOL !

  Published: November 11, 2009 2:21 PM

• Mike

  Vadim,

  Welcome to Mises.org. Your views are common among newcomers, but have been discussed over and over again on this site. You may find some people on this thread are gracious enough with their time to discuss this stuff here, but in any case, I recommend perusing this site. In doing so you will learn why we say the things we say about socialism, and why your arguments for socialism fail.
  

  Published: November 11, 2009 2:24 PM

• Wealth

  Mike,

  Most religous persons I know are Jesus freaks and everything they do, say and think has to be about Jesus or they go to hell. I can't stand those freaks. I can't stand liberals either. I absolutely hate both of them.

  Published: November 11, 2009 2:25 PM

• Mike

  Rock on, Wealth :-D

  Published: November 11, 2009 2:26 PM

• Mike

  Wealth,

  Ah, I see. Mine are of the Catholic type (that's how I was raised) which these days is like Christianity-lite. That's probably why I get along with them so well. They go to church, but they don't talk about Jesus much.

  Published: November 11, 2009 2:27 PM

• Mark

  I still think the biggest and most dangerous lie of the last 100 years told by hates of free markets like Bush and Obama is that the US has a free market. If we could just educate people to realize the US is nothing like a free market, we could make headway.

  Published: November 11, 2009 2:43 PM

• J Cortez

  Welcome, Vadim. Obviously, I disagree with your comments, but like Mike, I invite you to look through this site. There's some very good books, audio and video files here.

  To return back to the socialism as human nature and/or religion debate: I agree with pretty much all of Wealth's posts. I am an atheist myself and consider some of Fundamentalist's comments completely of base. I usually agree with Fundamentalist's comments, but his assertion that atheists are somehow nihilists is just plain wrong.
  

  Published: November 11, 2009 2:57 PM

• Ron

  It's not so much a matter of limiting personal freedom, though that is often a "side effect" of socialism. It's a matter of interfering with the natural flow of the free market. It seems unavoidable that, when a nation like America establishes a free market, the government cannot help but provide some small "fix." After that, the free market is no longer operating under its own natural influences. As more "fixes" are put into place, the more wildly the economy fluxuates. The government then points and says, "See, the free market doesn't work." We, the few, shout that it hasn't been a free market in over 100 years. But so many have been hurt by the "free market" that our voices are ignored. I hate to be a pessimist, but I've often stated that socialism is unavoidable. It's an easy sell to a confused and angry mob. I believe that we've already lost the fight, we're just too stubborn to shut up about it.

  Published: November 11, 2009 3:16 PM

• Sean

  @fundamentalist:

  
  (1) I myself am not educated in "the history of the debate (between atheism and Christianity) over the past two centuries or the history of philosophy", as you state it. At the same time, however, how convenient that in order to be qualified to have an intelligent opinion on the matter - apparently - one must be so educated, if you have anything to say about it, thank you very much. As if being intelligent, careful, and open minded is insufficient. And as if results don't speak for themselves, but only matter if brought about by those deemed sufficiently "expert" - and deemed so by those, in turn, who call themselves sufficiently "expert" at determining who qualifies as "expert" and who does not. No thanks, and I won't be visiting anytime soon.
  
  As an intelligent, reasonable, and intellectually careful person, I find it very difficult to believe that Mr. Hitchens "...does nothing but microwave old, worn-out and defeated atheist ideas", as you argue. I find many of his arguments quite persuasive, and most of those to the contrary quite unpersuasive, thanks. And your argument above is factually incorrect, to boot: Nowhere does Mr. Hitchens attach the impulse of self abrogation to socialism, as you say he does. In fact, I have argued that he DOESN'T but indeed OUGHT TO. Had you read my original blog entry above with any reasonable measure of care, you would have readily seen this.

  (2) You say above: "What Hitchens calls the 'impulse to self abrogation through the big-brother of religion/theism' could as easily be explained as the impulse for order and desire for truth."

  Indeed, Mr. Hitchens in fact describes theism as humanity's first attempt at philosophy, ethics, and science, among other things. I agree with this. Scripture and religious practice have persuaded many people of many scientifically unsound beliefs. I am quite comfortable with Mr. Hitchens' argument, and myself here arguing to this effect, because I have yet to hear a scientific argument which proves the existence of any kind of god. On the other hand, I have heard many scientific arguments which, to my mind, collectively render the possibility of the existence of god extremely unlikely. As a scientific proposition, I find the hypothesis of the existence of god as being a highly unsupported one.

  To my mind, maintaining that religion can be explained merely as a harmless "impulse for order" speaks not at all to mankind's continuing adherence to religion. After all, at this point in history - as compared to that point in history when today's major religions came into being - there exist so many more reasonable (i.e. scientifically sound) ways to order and make sense of the world. The explanations of science, to my mind, are far better suited to understanding and ordering the world than are those of religion. Indeed, so much so, I would argue, that when one chooses to adhere primarily to a religious world view, as opposed to a scientific world view, then a motive very different from a mere satisfaction of one's "impulse for order" surely must be operative in the decision.

  
  (3) You say above: "Hitchens needs to explain why socialism was dreamed up by atheists, championed by atheists, and still the choice of the majority of atheists."

  Hitchens would argue that, in fact, socialism was NOT dreamed up by atheists. I have heard his argument on this, and as a non-expert find it reasonably compelling. However, I do recognize that I am a non-expert on this matter, which to understand fully would require some measurably high degree of historic knowledge, to be sure.

  (4) You say above: "In the second place, Hitchens is playing the old shell game by using two definitions of religion and switching between them when it's convenient for his argument. The definition of religion is the belief in a transcendent being, but Hitchens uses the distorted definition that religion is merely devotion to a cause."

  I don't think so. Hitchens distinguishes between theism and deism. It is theism with which he takes umbrage, and correctly so.

  
  (5) You say above: "It's trivial and dishonest to define terms so that your argument wins by default, but that's the chief methodology of small minds like Hitchens."

  I'd say that my degree of familiarity with Hitchens' argument regarding atheism vs. theism is probably a 7/10. Surely, Hitchens indeed is far from perfect in method, regularly taking cheap shots at his opposition, and regularly making absurd and simplistic ad hominem attacks - like calling his opposition "small minded" and such. That being said, however, it's clear to me that in order to say that Hitchens argues in such a distorted manner that he must win by default is either (a) to innocently misunderstand his argument; or (b) to deliberately mischaracterize it.

  Either way, as far as I'm concerned, I must say that your argument vis-a-vis Hitchens widely misses the mark @fundamentalist.

  
  (6) Regarding the atheist and religious lovers of liberty, I agree indeed that this can be a significant yet unnecessary point of difference. And surely it is tangential to the issue of economic freedom. However, very essence of freedom requires tolerance and coexistence. To silence oneself, or to silence others, for fear of dissuading lovers of liberty / potential lovers of liberty FROM loving liberty is a deeply ironic and flawed notion that I want no part of. Censorship / self-censorship is a very slippery slope it seems to me, and one which in diametric opposition to the very idea and worth of liberty, and so too the very method by which it is safeguarded.
  

  Published: November 11, 2009 3:17 PM

• Walt D.

  I do not see socialism as a dichotomy between religion and atheism. It is more about the right to own private property. Socialists do not believe in the fundamental right to own property, that is unless it happens to be their own property.

  Published: November 11, 2009 3:28 PM

• Walt D.

  Is this a consequence of our current socialism government see-government do philosophy?
  
  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Report-Jump-in-store-theft-cnnm-2429367315.html;_ylt=Aktc_bqcmoLvtqurgCeHbIK7YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1MjQ1OWxuBHBvcwM1BHNlYwN0b3BTdG9yaWVzBHNsawNyZXBvcnRqdW1waW4-?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=3&asset=&ccode=

  Published: November 11, 2009 3:43 PM

• Sean

  To clarify, I argue that one could apply Mr. Hitchens' argument regarding atheism vs. theism to the argument regarding free market liberalism vs. socialism.

  Specifically, Mr. Hitchens argues the existence of a human impulse to self-abrogation, manifested - as he sees it - in religious theism. I argue that this impulse to self-abrogation (also) manifests itself in many, many choices and decisions which are antithetical to free market liberalism and promotive of big government / socialism.

  To my mind, it's the same - or very nearly so - impulse.

  Published: November 11, 2009 3:45 PM

• Wealth

  Mike,

  Catholics are more introverted and exclusive and this is why they are much less proselytizing than evangelicals. Catholics are like Hassidics and Amish and Sikhs. They keep their religion for themselves and their relatives.

  Catholics are family oriented and preach their faith to their own family instead of trying to recruit strangers.

  Catholics are much less aggressive about proselytizing others.

  Evangelicals are insufferable Jesus freaks.

  Published: November 11, 2009 3:52 PM

• Philip Shelton

  There was a joke in Poland many years ago which is the perfect example of the old saying "Many a true word is spoken in jest." It asked "What is the difference between capitalism and communism?" The answer? "Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Under communism it's the other way round."

  Published: November 11, 2009 3:56 PM

• Sean

  The impulse to self-abrogation is, specifically, an impulse to subjugation of oneself to a master.

  Published: November 11, 2009 3:56 PM

• Sean

  Philip Shelton,

  Only true if you share a definition of "capitalism" with Michael Moore and like 85% of the rest of the world. It is a definition, to be sure, which is wholly incorrect. Check it out yourself at this site.

  Published: November 11, 2009 4:05 PM

• Sean A

  For the atheists: those who, through religion, purport some deterministic aspect of life, i believe science (the uncertainty principle) and simple logic (subjective valuation of ends) have annihilated this view. Thus the concept of God acting as a puppeteer and we the people being puppets seems clearly fallacious. Likewise, the concept of divine innate law is a bit far-fetched as well; in other words, logic seems to suggest that human action and interaction shape values and morals (being at Mises' website, this is nothing new). However, it seems your concepts on religion have been dissuaded by these fallacious arguments that have seemed to prevail to a degree in much of organized religion. True, many of these religions seem rather arbitrary in their ritualistic nature, and more philosophical in their moral views. Yet their reasoning does not stray far from yours: you both allege to know a truth beyond our universal experience. there is no amount of deductive logic or reasoning that can even begin to suggest such answers without an uncomfortable amount of speculation. Thus your conclusion: "therefore, no God," (however god may be defined) does not necessarily follow. It is similar to the argument of whether or not there is intelligent life beyond our planet. We are not equipped with enough discernible evidence to come to any reasonable conclusions for or against.

  Published: November 11, 2009 4:14 PM

• Mark Davis

  "The definition of religion is the belief in a transcendent being,..."

  Hmmm...Are agnostics considered religious? Does belief in UFOs qualify as a religion? Do transcendent beings have to be from this planet? Or perhaps just one of their parents? Is it possible to transcend if you already exist independent of natural bodies?

  Anyhow, socialism framed as a "chicken and egg" question goes nowhere fast. No wonder the masses are so confused and Mr. Hitchens goes in circles. Socialism is a mental health problem, not a philosophical dilemma. Seeking to justify theft and violence with envy causes irreparable cognitive dissonance. With no known cure crisis is imminent.

  Published: November 11, 2009 4:19 PM

• Sean

  SeanA,

  The existence of god is an hypothesis, for which exists very scant supportive evidence.

  So, yes, therefore no god. (i.e. Very, very likely no god).

  Published: November 11, 2009 4:20 PM

• Sean

  Again, Mr. Hitchens has nothing whatever to say about socialism.

  Published: November 11, 2009 4:24 PM

• fundamentalist

  Vadim: “people still have to work 8 hours a day for miserable payment to strangle to make ends meet.”

  Well, it depends on what you compare it to. People today work fewer hours and not nearly as hard as my grandparents did, and we have a much higher standard of living. On the other hand, some people will never be satisfied as long as they have to work at all.

  Vadim: “Someone is trying hard to attribute socialism as being synonymic to tyranny and oppression of freedom. Whenever more equal distribution of society wealth is mentioned then someone start screaming about socialism, threat to liberty and labor camps.”

  I don’t think you understand the charges against socialism. Socialism takes away property rights and all freedom issues from property rights.
  Vadim: “Socialism means that high minimum salary of working people has to be controlled by governments and that the rich have to pay much higher taxes.”

  Socialists assume the if the wealth of the wealthiest people was evenly distributed then we would all be equally wealthy. But as the USSR, China and every other socialist country has proved, that’s not true. When the wealth of the wealthiest is taken away and given to the rest of the people, everyone becomes equally poor. Why do you think France and Germany elected presidents with the goal of reducing the welfare state in their countries? Because they have taken most of the wealth of the wealthy and the tax burden now falls almost completely on the middle class. The government takes the wages of workers and then gives it back to them after wasting much of it.

  Vadim: “No one is going to limit your freedom to travel and live you private life the way you like.”
  Read Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom.”

  Socialists always promise paradise and deliver hell. That's not speculation; it's history.

  Vadim: “These enormous bailouts out of taxpayers pockets have nothing to do with free market and beneficial only to the wealthy and mighty.”

  Exactly! It has nothing to do with capitalism.
  

  Published: November 11, 2009 4:38 PM

• Mark Davis

  But he does. I believe he said that he is no longer a socialist and is now some sort of Marxist libertarian. Interesting fellow for sure.

  http://www.democracynow.org/2004/10/12/tariq_ali_v_christopher_hitchens_a
  

  Published: November 11, 2009 4:43 PM

• Sean

  I see. Mr. Hitchens, vis-a-vis socialism, above is discussed in a different context.

  Published: November 11, 2009 4:46 PM

• fundamentalist

  SeanA: “As if being intelligent, careful, and open minded is insufficient.”

  A person can be intelligent, careful and open minded and still be ignorant. As I wrote, if you think Hitchens is brilliant, that says nothing but that you are ignorant about the debate. Saying Hitchens is brilliant is like saying “Harry Potter” is great literature.

  SeanA: “I find many of his arguments quite persuasive, and most of those to the contrary quite unpersuasive, thanks.”

  Most atheists find socialism quite persuasive and the libertarian arguments against it quite unpersuasive. What does that prove?

  SeanA: “Scripture and religious practice have persuaded many people of many scientifically unsound beliefs.”

  At the same time, any historian of science will tell you that modern science originated within Christianity and was practiced by devout Christians because of the Christian emphasis on reason. Newton, as just one example, was a devout believer and good theologian. It’s interesting that historians credit Christianity with the birth of liberty and science, yet atheists want to claim them as there own.

  I doubt you could give me many examples of religious practice persuading people of many scientifically unsound beliefs. Off hand, I can only think of the issue of evolution, but that is debated by scientists, though they’re in a minority it’s true.

  SeanA: “I have yet to hear a scientific argument which proves the existence of any kind of god.”

  Again, that says nothing but that you are ignorant and don’t want to know anything that might threaten your irrational faith.

  SeanA: “Hitchens would argue that, in fact, socialism was NOT dreamed up by atheists.”

  Read Hayek’s “Counter-Revolution in Science.”

  SeanA: “It is theism with which he takes umbrage, and correctly so.”

  If Hitchens equates socialism with religion, he is playing the old deceitful shell game. I may have mistakenly attributed that position to Hitchens when it was actually your argument.

  SeanA: “To silence oneself, or to silence others, for fear of dissuading lovers of liberty / potential lovers of liberty FROM loving liberty is a deeply ironic and flawed notion that I want no part of.”

  So you’re not really concerned about advancing liberty and building a better nation. Spouting off makes you feel better so you’re going to do it regardless of the consequences.

  SeanA: “Mr. Hitchens argues the existence of a human impulse to self-abrogation, manifested - as he sees it - in religious theism.”

  No such impulse exists. Hitchens is just making that up. If history is any example, mankind has always struggled against subjugation.

  SeanA: “Thus the concept of God acting as a puppeteer and we the people being puppets seems clearly fallacious.”

  Islam is the only religion that has such a concept. One could interpret Hinduism that way. Atheists are the main proponents of people as puppets because atheism makes us nothing more than the sum or our chemical reactions which were predetermined for us through evolution. Atheism destroys free will.

  SeanA: “there is no amount of deductive logic or reasoning that can even begin to suggest such answers without an uncomfortable amount of speculation.”

  Again, you’re just advertising your ignorance of the debate. There is over a millenia of work, beginning with Thomas Aquinas that does exactly what you say can’t be done. Read these excerpts from “When Atheists Believe” by Chuck Colson:

  “In recent years Great Britain's chief export to the U.S. has been a payload of books by atheist authors such as evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and literary critic Christopher Hitchens. They contend that faith is irrational in the face of modern science. Other prominent British atheists seem to be having second thoughts. Is there some revival sweeping England? No; they are examining the rationality of Christianity, the very beliefs Dawkins and others are so profitably engaging, but are coming to opposite conclusions.”

  “Well-known scholar Antony Flew was the first, saying he had to go "where the evidence [led]." Evolutionary theory, he concluded, has no reasonable explanation for the origin of life. When I met with Flew in Oxford, he told me that while he had not come to believe in the biblical God, he had concluded that atheism is not logically sustainable.”

  “He noticed that the people who insist we are "simply anthropoid apes" cannot account for things as basic as language, love, and music. That, along with the "even stronger argument" of how the "Christian faith transforms individual lives," convinced Wilson that "the religion of the incarnation … is simply true." http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/october/33.58.html

  If you're not familiar with the evidence for God, it's only because you don't want to know it. And I can understand that. Many Christians refuse to read books by atheists like Hitchens because they fear it will damage their faith, too.

  Published: November 11, 2009 5:18 PM

• Walt D.

  Dawkins argues that there is a genetic basis for religion, and that since religion tends to promote violence and evil, that it is appropriate to look for a gene therapy to suppress this undesirable behavior. To follow his argument its logical conclusion, one could equally argue the same for socialism. Perhaps we should look for a gene therapy to suppress socialism?

  Published: November 11, 2009 5:41 PM

• Sean A

  Fundamentalist, i believe you are confusing me with the URL "Sean" in the first part of the argument. Thus there is this compilation of agnostic and atheism in those quotes. I differentiate the two as i imagine most people do.

  Therefore your response to my comment “there is no amount of deductive logic or reasoning that can even begin to suggest such answers without an uncomfortable amount of speculation”
  appears to be arguing a proof of god rather than a denouncement of atheism--perhaps you are. My point was that this applies equally to both sides of the argument. Perhaps this a Socratic cop-out---he who is wise is he who knows when they are ignorant--but i feel its a valuable lesson. The debate is, however, an interesting insight into man's attempt to rationalize every aspect of existence on and off this world. However, I'd prefer to remove myself from the infinitely regressive debate and simply live according to subjective earthly values rather than delve into any definite conclusions of God or spirituality.

  Published: November 11, 2009 5:42 PM

• Sean A

  Socialists disregard the adjusting mechanism in human behavior. If a child witnesses his friend stick his hand into a fire and get burned he will likely not attempt the same thing; if he does, he too will be burned. Likewise, if a bank extends loose credit and fails other banks will adjust their behavior, trying to avoid the behavior that led to that bank's failing. If they do not, they too will fail. However, individuals react to the immediately failure and are horrified by directly or indirectly affected by the poor decisions of the bank. The government steps in and convinces them 1) we can bail out this bank therefore no one will be hurt; 2) we will regulate the banks so that this doesn't happen again. There is no adjustment allowed to happen by profit seeking industries--the benevolent dictators make this adjustment for them. Rather than learning by behavior, people and businesses are now learning by legal restrictions. The result: rather than learning successes and failures and adjusting behavior accordingly, those in charge can adjust the behavior of their subordinates according to their own value judgments. We become the puppets in their act.

  Published: November 11, 2009 6:08 PM

• Leland H

  There is something very basic about the socialism of the left and the corporate cronyism (incorrectly called capitalism in our time) of the neoconservative right that most people don't seem to understand. Socialism and corporate cronyism are not really ideologically based movements of any kind; they are instead psychotherapy cults. They are two sides of the same tyrannical coin. Their proponents do not use ideas and reason to advance their cause, they instead use psychological conditioning (or psychotherapy or brainwashing or any other euphemism you like for trauma based mind control) to "convince" people of the rightness of their cause. Any "ideological" arguments they put forward are merely a smokescreen to cover the covert aggression being used against those whom the cult wishes to target. And that is what makes them so insidious and dangerous. That is why people forget what history has shown over and over and it is why more people don't demand freedom as tyranny advances. Because, as tyranny advances, people become less and less capable of thinking for themselves and more and more dependent upon the direction of the masters of the cult. And the politicians and corporate leaders are merely chief among those brainwashed by the cult. Until we all stop fighting socialism and corporate cronyism as simple ideological movements and begin to instead fight them as the psychotherapy cult they really are, we will not succeed.

  Published: November 11, 2009 6:13 PM

• Sean

  @fundamentalist

  It's "Sean", NOT "SeanA". Get it straight. You keep having trouble correctly attributing arguments which you then insist on fallaciously attacking.

  Again, being ignorant of the history of the debate between atheists and theists does not disqualify one from holding a reasonable opinion regarding the existence of god, with or without Mr. Hitchens.

  On the other hand, being intelligent, careful, and open-minded DOES qualify one to draw reasonable conclusions based on the information currently at one's disposal.

  To the best of my knowledge, god does not exist. I have kept my eyes peeled and my ear to the ground, and this for many years. And I'm no slouch either. Yet hardly a shred of persuasive and scientifically verifiable evidence has come my way. Therefore I call myself an atheist.

  If scientific evidence exists, show me. I could care less to search for it myself, because I haven't seen any hint of it all this time. Why would I waste my time on something that no one has yet proven, far as I can tell, yet so many have such a strong, strong interest in proving?

  And those who insist I am misguided, or merely an atheist out of blind faith, wish also for me to believe that the earth is 7,000 years old, and Noah built an arc, etc. This is the crowd you run with, not me. And, I must say, your arguments are hardly impressive or commending of listening to further. I consider it a waste of time at this point.

  For instance, you say above:

  "At the same time, any historian of science will tell you that modern science originated within Christianity and was practiced by devout Christians because of the Christian emphasis on reason. Newton, as just one example, was a devout believer and good theologian. It’s interesting that historians credit Christianity with the birth of liberty and science, yet atheists want to claim them as there own."

  This proves nothing, and is a fallacious argument. Many brilliant scientists are also crackpots, their scientific achievements notwithstanding. Whether they are crackpots or not has NOTHING to do with the validity of their scientific conclusions. Outside of their science endeavors, these people are complete weirdos. But you'd like to argue that, well, since they are brilliant scientists the irrational behavior these people exhibit in their non-scientific lives surely must be valid. And, of course, this means that since Newton was such a brilliant scientist, his religious faith necessarily then carries some real authority. Nope, sorry.

  Thanks for the stimulating discussion. Yet another reminder of why I don't engage in such discussions more often: blind fallacy after blind fallacy. Imagine that, even by you the self-proclaimed expert.

  
  

  Published: November 11, 2009 6:14 PM

• Sean

  @fundamentalist:

  I missed the quotes by Mr. Colson, namely:

  “Well-known scholar Antony Flew was the first, saying he had to go "where the evidence [led]." Evolutionary theory, he concluded, has no reasonable explanation for the origin of life. When I met with Flew in Oxford, he told me that while he had not come to believe in the biblical God, he had concluded that atheism is not logically sustainable.”

  “He noticed that the people who insist we are "simply anthropoid apes" cannot account for things as basic as language, love, and music. That, along with the "even stronger argument" of how the "Christian faith transforms individual lives," convinced Wilson that "the religion of the incarnation … is simply true."

  ======================

  Mr. Colson is free to draw any conclusion he wishes regarding the origin of life. Whether or not evolutionary theory can provide a reasonable explanation is irrelevent to the question of whether theism can. It's a false dichotomy. Granting Mr. Colson's conclusion that evolutionary theory cannot satisfactorily explain the origin of life does not mean that one must, by default, then accept the religious explanation. False dichotomy.

  Similar argument for "language, love, and music."

  The whopper here, to me, is that Mr. Colson finds the fact that "the Christian faith transforms individual lives" as constituting an "even stronger argument" for theism than does his false dichotomy above. Rising to the level of an "even stronger argument" than a false dichotomy is a very low bar indeed.

  If you find such nonsense persuasive, I support your freedom to do so.

  Published: November 11, 2009 6:39 PM

• Praful

  Is it possible that capitalism is being rejected because it is viewed as a system which is not capable of optimal distribution of wealth and therefore needs a complimentary system such as religion which encourages a volunteer way of sharing and also at the same time give meaning to individual effort by serving a higher purpose of life ? A disconnect between these systems then allows the State, rightly or wrongly to step in with results that are sometimes good and sometimes awful. A comprehensive world view has to provide for individual's freewill and effort and enjoy it's rewards, a social system where he/she feels protected and willing to share,and a system of ethics and morals where the least desirable of human characteristics such as greed are contained. The political system or the State exists to facilitate the above by good governance.
  Sounds ideal but that is what propels human effort and society to a different level .

  Published: November 11, 2009 6:43 PM

• Lysander

  Although I am an atheist, I think that atheism has been the greatest gift to big government everywhere.

  When men believed in God, their own death was not such a big deal. They could look forward to personal immortality, or at least to some kind of synthesis with a supreme overlord in the next world.

  When men ceased to believe in God, the prospect of their own death became uniquely horrifying. The futility of living and dying like an animal appalled them. They desperately sought the comfort of being part of a bigger whole, something which would outlast their own lives and whose achievements they could claim in part as their own.

  Into this vacuum stepped the nation state. Your life is not in vain because it can be dedicated to the service of the Fuehrer. His victories are your victories. L'etat? C'est moi.

  It is a similar story with democracy. By voting for a chamber or for a president, men fancy themselves as the power behind the throne. Their word is law. Their biceps are the Sixth Fleet. And their enemies are the bumptious cranks who peddle heresies about liberty and property.

  Published: November 11, 2009 7:00 PM

• Hard Rain

  "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer

  Published: November 11, 2009 7:33 PM

• newson

  fundamentalist says:
  "When the wealth of the wealthiest is taken away and given to the rest of the people, everyone becomes equally poor."

  i know you know this is not the case at all. the rich become poorer, the poor become poorer, but the wealth disparity under socialism is just as high if not higher than (vaguely) capitalistic systems.

  http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/5/155118.shtml

  Published: November 11, 2009 7:34 PM

• newson

  socialism means rivers of hennessy cognac for the snobs, and dirt and bark to eat for the yobs.

  http://www.rickross.com/reference/nkorea/nkorea26.html

  Published: November 11, 2009 7:43 PM

• Paul Stephens

  This sounds like the Pew Trust (Sun Oil company) poll that came out a few days ago. The question was fatally flawed. People were asked whether they approved of the crony-gangster capitalism which replaced the state capitalism of the former Soviet Bloc. Of course they didn't! They wanted Social Democracy or a Social Market Economy like Scandinavia, which maximizes individual freedom and welfare, while excluding predatory corporations which are bent on looting the public treasury by "privatizing" healthcare, education, pensions, etc.
  What they got, instead, was NATO and continuing wars, torture, and oppression.
  Capitalism does NOT mean "freedom" or "democracy." It means rule by the capitalists, a very small hereditary elite who care nothing about freedom or the general welfare, Pareto Optimality, Peace, or Justice.

  Published: November 11, 2009 8:14 PM

• Jacko

  Mises view of 'capitalism' is an abstraction - it has never existed in the history of the world. When most people think of 'capitalism' they think of the economic system exemplified in the UK & the US. The history of these examples demonstrates the power of institutionalized greed by a few to dominate the needs of the many by controlling the political process in each country. Owners of capital have awarded themselves protection (both legal, personal liability & anonymity) by the legal fiction of the 'corporation'. Unlike earlier collective economic aggregation before 1870 (e.g. royal charter) this arrangement allowed economic decisions to be made that only benefited the owners of capital, all other stake-holders were ignored. This has resulted in wild fluctuations in the economy & the eventual emergence of 'casino capitalism', where gambling on changes in asset prices becomes the only use of capital everywhere in the world.
  So, do not be surprised when the majority of the world, who are not capital owners, decide that this system does not appear to offer them any more benefits than that other example of bureaucratic feudalism - totalitarian state socialism.
  There are more than these two ways to organize our economic affairs, not least for example, small, freely-associating enterprises distributed across each nation.

  Published: November 11, 2009 8:23 PM

• Gadfly on the Wall

  Ah yes, the age old debate between good and evil and between capitalism and centrally managed economies.

  As a student of history, I know that there will always be an ebb and flow between the two. Socialism (or communism) is the reaction to abusive capitalism, where the haves abuse their moral responsibilities. Likewise, the swing (as we are seeing in Asia) is from a restrictive managed economy to one of capitalism, again a reaction to the stifling effect of a managed economy.

  If you understand that there will always be this ebb and flow, you can position your investments appropriately.

  Published: November 11, 2009 8:49 PM

• Abhilash Nambiar

  @fundamentalist

  I was wondering why this thread was crazy with activity. Then I saw 'fundamentalist' being the troll.
  There must be some way to minimize the impact of serial propagandists like 'fundamentalist' who tries to hijack almost every thread into an atheism vs theism debate. I was being polite to him, but now I am pretty sick of him.

  Well fundamentalist, you are a Calvinist are you not? You have admitted so already. Well here is where Calvinism vanishes in a puff of logic:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2BzHf-PX5o
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fg_GsV1hDI
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aqcn1srPTNo
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rt3owDTCp4

  I suggest you embrace Catholicism. After all the Jesuits where the fore-runners of Austrian economic tradition.

  Personally I have nothing against people believing in the idea that there is a god. But I have everything against people using that as a pretext to mislead people with fallacious and nonsensical arguments. Besides it is counter productive. fundamentalist, you are your own worst enemy. Because of you Christianity has a poorer reputation than it deserves.

  Published: November 11, 2009 10:08 PM

• newson

  to jacko:
  the "wild fluctuations", as per the misesean/hayekian insight, as not from capitalism per se, but from the fractional reserve banking system.

  you may care to draw on the ample resources available on this topic on the site.

  Published: November 11, 2009 11:28 PM

• Eric

  What do you expect from a country that polls say 40% believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

  Sometimes I believe our cousins the chimps show us more about ourselves than we care to admit.

  Misery loves company. Boy are we going to have lots of company!

  Published: November 12, 2009 12:18 AM

• Becky

  Rocco Leonard Martino talks a lot about the state of our country in his latest book titled, "Cancel Christmas." One very important question he bring up is... Do our representatives and senators look upon their elected seat as a personal asset to be continued for the lifetime or for as long as they want, no matter how their constituents may feel about it? I believe the answer is YES.

  
  

  Published: November 12, 2009 1:13 AM

• fundamentalist

  Sean: “If scientific evidence exists, show me.”

  I have found that to be a waste of time because all atheists I have ever talked to refuse to admit that there is no evidence whatsoever that they would accept. Honest people will accept evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt. Atheists won’t accept any evidence at all. If you could give me a type of scientific evidence that you would accept as proof, I would be glad to provide it.

  Praful: “Is it possible that capitalism is being rejected because it is viewed as a system which is not capable of optimal distribution of wealth and therefore needs a complimentary system such as religion….”

  Hayek had a generous view of why socialism is attractive to people. He thought that people were applying the ethics of wealth distribution that is appropriate at the level of families and tribes, where the giver and recipients know each other, to the inappropriate level of nations and national economic policy, where it is disastrous.

  Praful: “A comprehensive world view has to provide for individual's freewill and effort and enjoy it's rewards, a social system where he/she feels protected and willing to share,and a system of ethics and morals where the least desirable of human characteristics such as greed are contained.”

  And that’s what Adam Smith’s capitalism does if allowed to work. It protects property so that individual effort produces greater wealth for all. For example, when steam powered weaving mills replaced home weavers, the entrepreneur profited; workers earned higher wages; and consumers became wealthier through lower costs. Because everyone is wealthier, they are more likely to give to those less well off. Church, community, family provide the sharing and protection. Competition in the free market contains greed because greedy people will lose out to honest competitors.

  Abhilash: “But I have everything against people using that as a pretext to mislead people with fallacious and nonsensical arguments.”

  I’ve come to expect childish insults from you and it doesn’t bother me at all. If you’re going to post, you could at least try to be clever with your insults. I usually don’t introduce the topic of religion on this blog. I prefer to discuss economics here. But when atheists persist in attacking religion I don’t mind responding. If you don’t like my defenses of Christianity, don’t read them, or persuade your atheist friends to stop attacking.
  

  Published: November 12, 2009 8:22 AM

• Wealth

  Eric,

  "What do you expect from a country that polls say 40% believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old."

  50% of people in this country believe that the earth is 1 year old and was created by Saint-Obama !

  That leaves us with only 10% of people with a head on their neck out of which only 2% are libertarians and only 1% of those voted Bob Barr.

  We're FUCKED !

  Published: November 12, 2009 9:09 AM

• Wealth

  Mrhuh,

  Given that I won't be around in centuries from now, I couldn't care less and I don't give a flying F.

  Published: November 12, 2009 9:11 AM

• Wealth

  Eric,

  Chimps are more evovled than human beings. They know how to survive in tiny groups of only 12 individuals, they don't need to be packed with millions of strangers deciding at their place to survive.

  Chimps respect private property and the right to self-defense, you won't see a chimp disarm another chimp by taking away his stick. Yes chimps use sticks to defend themselves against predators.

  Chimps don't vote, don't need democracy and are not run by kleptocratic despots, they don't have burdensome religion that forbids them sex so then can reproduce and enjoy themselves without feeling guilty.

  They don't need to work 8 to 5 all year long for a crummy wages, they simply harvest their needs in trees.

  Chimps don't commit mass genocides and don't need nuclear weapons to "protect" themselves against threatening enemies.

  I guess we could learn a lot from chimps. At to say we consider them inferior to us.

  21st December 2012 can't come soon enough.

  Published: November 12, 2009 9:17 AM

• Sean

  @fundamentalist

  Based on the Colson quotes you so eagerly provide above, I'm afraid that your definition of science has clearly more to do with sophistry and distorted reasoning than anything else. So much so, in fact, that I'm quite sure you utterly fail to understand what sound reasoning and sound science consists of.

  Published: November 12, 2009 9:18 AM

• Wealth

  Fundamentalist,

  "I have found that to be a waste of time because all atheists I have ever talked to refuse to admit that there is no evidence whatsoever that they would accept."

  Please admit that there is NO EVIDENCE.

  In science, it's not about "accepting", it's about seeing.

  Science is a Thomas, it will only believe when it will see it.

  It's been 2009 years science haven't been shown anything credible. On the other hand, it's been 2009 years that science has been disproving christian myths one after the other.

  Published: November 12, 2009 9:23 AM

• Wealth

  Fundamentalist,

  However, I'm the kind of Atheist who would never believe in God even if he appeared before me.

  God may exist, but I will never worship him. If God exists then he is the biggest criminal and my staunchest enemy.

  It is better for him to not exist. Maybe God is silent because he feels ashamed at how much he fucked up his creation and that even he couldn't explain himself and couldn't answer our tough questions.

  If I would have fucked up things like he did, I would hide in oblivion and keep silent too.

  Published: November 12, 2009 9:26 AM

• Mike

  fundamentalist:

  I don't know what atheists you've been talking to, but you grossly underestimate the intellectual depth of many of us. We didn't just decide "Yay atheism! I just love to believe that I am completely cosmically insignificant and all my achievements will count for naught in the end!"

  In fact, quite the opposite is true for those of us who grew up under the threat of hellfire for nonbelief. I went through almost a decade of anxiety-ridden questioning, eventually but slowly growing more and more content with being an atheist as my knowledge of nature expanded. This was not in any way an easy or shallow process as you seem to imply with your sweeping dismissal of atheism as some sort of anti-intellectual pseudo-religious dogma. The easy way out for me would have been to remain a Christian, by a long shot.

  I don't care what you believe. Like I said, I'm not here to start a theism vs. atheism debate. But I take issue with the implication that I am atheist therefore I am a thoughtless drone, and am compelled to respond.
  

  Published: November 12, 2009 9:30 AM

• Wealth

  Gadfly that I squish on the wall,

  "Socialism (or communism) is the reaction to abusive capitalism, where the haves abuse their moral responsibilities"

  How can you be abusive about keeping what's yours without harming others ?

  How can you be abusive about keeping your hard earned money ?

  How can you be abusive about providing a product that others are willing to pay top dollars to have ?

  There is absolutely nothing abusive about capitalism. The haves are rewarded because the provide something that every have-not wants and is willing to give a lot of money to have.

  If the have-nots are stupid enough to kiss the have's asses and wait in line several hours in the blistering cold to get over priced tickets for the have's rock concert, then it's the have-not's fault.

  If the have-nots are stupid enough to mortgage their houses to buy a plasma TV, then it's their own fault.

  If the have-nots are stupid enough to breed 10 babies on minimum wage, then it's their fault.

  It's rarely the have that abuses the have-nots, it's almost always the have-nots that abuse themselves.

  I'm a have-not myself, but you better not rob the haves because what keeps me alive is the hope that one day I will myself be a have.

  If you start robbing the haves and thereby kill my hope, then I will come for you !

  Published: November 12, 2009 9:31 AM

• Wealth

  Newson,

  "socialism means rivers of hennessy cognac for the snobs, and dirt and bark to eat for the yobs."

  Sounds like "evil" capitalism to me.

  Published: November 12, 2009 9:34 AM

• Wealth

  Mike,

  " Psychoanalysis' name may be tarnished, but it's not because of Horney"

  Psychoanalysis has a bad name because Freud was a hallucinating maniac who was seeing penises everywhere and in everything. Freud was gay.

  Just as evangelicals see Jesus everywhere and democrats see the government everywhere.

  Now, imagine a Freudian evangelical democrat, you get Fred Phelps.

  Published: November 12, 2009 9:38 AM

• Wealth

  "Is it possible that capitalism is being rejected because it is viewed as a system which is not capable of optimal distribution of wealth"

  Yes, this is exactly why it is being rejected.

  But what people don't understand is that it is up to them to make their own wealth, capitalism will not make it at their place.

  Could it be that capitalism is rejected because the vast majority of people are lazy slobs who would rather live off somebody elses hard work ?

  Published: November 12, 2009 9:42 AM

• Wealth

  Mark Davis,

  "Anyhow, socialism framed as a "chicken and egg" question"

  Where's the rooster ? It took a rooster.

  It's obvious the rooster came first, then the chicken and then the egg.

  Published: November 12, 2009 9:44 AM

• Mike

  And Freud's personal issues, and especially the way they infected his theories, are precisely why psychoanalysis is such a misunderstood discipline. Many of his successors in fact take frequent jabs at him and his theories in their books. But there is nothing maniacal or anti-intellectual about attempting to build an abstract model of the mental processes culminating in human action. Freud just did a very poor job of it.
  

  Published: November 12, 2009 9:48 AM

• Mike

  One of the reasons psychoanalysis is in disrepute is the "empirical failure" of its therapeutic methods in "curing" people. To me, this is the same fallacy that Austrain-bashers use. The main reason psychoanalysis "doesn't work" on a lot of people is that it requires work and discomfort on the part of the patient. It's not a "band-aid" for "feel-good" therapy. The end result of successful analysis is not somebody who has merely an inflated self-esteem, as you get with the modern "empirical" therapeutic techniques (which are predictably relapse-laden), but someone who realizes intimately the reality that responsibility is the only way out. To have high self-esteem you must do things that are esteemable. Successful analysis merely makes the patient realize the indisputability of this fact. The patient then does the rest.

  But naturally, this is not going to work for a lot of people, who are so in love with their own inertia.

  It reminds me of a quote I read online:

  "Most of us have many needs which require us to obtain the cooperation of other people. The willingness of other people to give us what we want from them depends on our ability to give them what they want. Since people are tough customers most of us will fail to get everything we want from others.

  Because we are so dependent on others, we appear to have evolved an internal emotional guage (call it “self-esteem” if you like) which constantly tries to keep us informed of our value to others. If our value to others is slipping, our anxiety level increases, and this is Nature’s way of trying to prod us to do something to increase our value to others, lest we threaten our ability to get others to meet our needs.

  The big fat lie of modern times is to pretend that low self-esteem is itself a problem, and if you can just persuade people to pretend they are worth a lot to other people, all their problems will magically go away.

  That’s like claiming if your car runs out of gasoline, you can keep on driving if you duct-tape the fuel guage needle so it points to “Full.”"

  Most psychoanalysists would agree with this quote. Modern "pop" psychology would not.
  

  Published: November 12, 2009 9:58 AM

• Mark Davis

  Wealth,

  Ehh.. a rooster is a chicken. FYI for any city boys: a rooster is a male chicken and a hen is a female chicken. Hope this helps ;>)

  Published: November 12, 2009 10:08 AM

• Wealth

  Mark,

  Well it takes both a male and a female, a rooster and a hen to make an egg.

  So it was the chicken before the egg, an egg can't raise itself.

  Case in point.

  Published: November 12, 2009 11:05 AM

• Wealth

  Mike,

  Freud was an old penile, LOL ! (pun intended) ;-)

  Published: November 12, 2009 11:10 AM

• fundamentalist

  Wealth: “On the other hand, it's been 2009 years that science has been disproving christian myths one after the other.”

  Please show me one.

  Mike: “This was not in any way an easy or shallow process as you seem to imply with your sweeping dismissal of atheism as some sort of anti-intellectual pseudo-religious dogma.”

  That’s not what I meant to imply about atheism. When I considered atheism in college, I wanted to read the best atheists around, men like Nietzche, Sartre, Camus. After reading them, I find atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens trite. Evidence and logical support for atheism does exist and I’m aware of it. But evidence and logical support for theism also exists. The great atheist writers struggled with it. Dawkins and Hitchens just snear at it in a childish way. While recognizing the evidence and logical support that exists for atheism, I happen to think the evidence and logical support for theism is quite a bit better.
  

  Published: November 12, 2009 11:46 AM

• tomas

  When you can see a system that upholds the right of those who are capable of manipulating the market to siphon wealth or saving from honest working people, and to say that capitalism protect the right of everyone, you know where your honesty lie.

  Published: November 12, 2009 11:57 AM

• Ben

  I'm a Christian (fundamentalist sort of person) and see no conflict between my faith and my libertarian views. Indeed i struggle to understand how i could be otherwise. Yes, the Bible sets out a list of cans and can nots but it is made plain that it is between the indivdual man, his conscience and God whether or not he obeys them. And Christianty isn't about works anyway least any man should boast.

  And Christ's words: "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" Doesn't that sum up the basic libertarian approach to respecting each other's freedom?

  Published: November 12, 2009 12:02 PM

• Mike

  tomas,

  Please provide me your working definition of "capitalism", because it seems to be way off. You appear to be defining it as "the crap that goes on in America." Here at Mises.org, we do not consider the American system capitalist.

  
  

  Published: November 12, 2009 12:33 PM

• fundamentalist

  Earlier I asked Abhilash to attempt to be more clever with his insults. For those who think insults are important here's a really clever one:

  "Try getting a window pane installed in your belly. This way, as your head slides further and further up your a**, you can look out and see what's going on in the rest of the world. Otherwise, you can just continue spinning around, trying to figure out whether to scratch your watch or wind your butt."

  I welcome all insults that are this clever! If not substance, they at least contribute entertainment.

  tomas, if you're referring to the current system in the US, you aren't referring to capitalism, but to a mixed system that is about 2/3 socialist. To see a capitalist system in action you would have to go back to the US before the founding of the Fed in 1913.
  

  Published: November 12, 2009 12:35 PM

• T. Ralph Kays

  Wealth

  "Well it takes both a male and a female, a rooster and a hen to make an egg."
  As usual you don't know what you are talking about. Hens lay eggs even if they have never been anywhere near a rooster.

  Published: November 12, 2009 1:14 PM

• Mike

  fundamentalist:

  I want to come up with a witty retort involving the Broken Window fallacy, but alas, nothing good is bubbling up.
  

  Published: November 12, 2009 1:24 PM

• Mark Morton Glasgow

  I applaud the Mises Institute and all those who staunchly defend a free market and capitalism. As Mr. Rockwell points out, ideas do matter, and are the foundation of even ill-intended outcomes when rooted in ignorance. It seems that education offers us the most powerful weapon in fighting against the formidable ignorance prevalent in our time. Freedom, liberty and free market capitalism are causes worth fighting for. Though our cause is not the fashion of the day, it is nonetheless politically and morally correct. May freedom reign within our hearts and minds and may we work diligently to capture the hearts and minds of all men of goodwill.

  Published: November 12, 2009 1:38 PM

• Sean

  @Mark Morton Glasgow,

  Here, here. Well spoken.

  Published: November 12, 2009 2:00 PM

• Abhilash Nambiar

  fundamentalist

  I usually don’t introduce the topic of religion on this blog.

  I know from experience that this is not at all true. You try to maneuver any discussion on almost any article that even tangentially touches on religion into a religion vs atheism debate. I suspect it stems from your own sense of insecurity. But suspicion is not proof so I won't pretend it is.

  Fortunately for you, there is no easy way in this blog to list out just comments from one person. So it is less easier to detect. That and the fact that you keep bringing up stale arguments that have been addressed as if they never have.

  Published: November 12, 2009 6:07 PM

• Bruce Koerber

  Ideological Change Is Unnoticed By Socialists.
  
  When does an ideological change take place and what percentage of the populace is needed to 'get the ball rolling?'

  Ideological change happens when there is a firm conviction that is basically overwhelming. In our case it is overwhelming because of the foundation of truth that is in classical liberalism. Ideological change happens when there is a light breaking like the dawn of a new day and there is an irresistable torrent of excitement in anticipation of its arrival. This is what we are feeling as lovers of liberty and justice.

  It is true that in chemistry the smallest amount of a catalyst may trigger a reaction but we are humans not atoms. In our domain of subjectivism, deep in our subjectivist nature lies the answer to the question about what percentage of the populace is needed to 'get the ball rolling.' One thing is for sure - Ron Paul is generating an increase in percentages and so is the Mises Institute, and Peter Schiff, and Tom Woods, and the list is growing.

  Ideological change is like a thunderstorm. It forms as a result of the prevailing conditions, it builds and has numerous layers, it is announced by thunder, and it carries a great charge of lightning, wind, rain and hail. It clears the air and afterwards everyone reaps the benefits and fixes those things that are worthwhile.

  Published: November 12, 2009 8:30 PM

• EIS

  Fruitless debate over religion. How boring.

  Published: November 12, 2009 10:23 PM

• Seattle

  "Truth." I hear that word a lot around here.

  I'm beginning to wonder if there's any such thing.

  Published: November 13, 2009 6:42 AM

• Mike

  If by "truth" you mean external reality independent of the experience and knowledge of any individual, yes, there is.

  Published: November 13, 2009 8:07 AM

• fundamentalist

  Bruce: "When does an ideological change take place and what percentage of the populace is needed to 'get the ball rolling?'"

  Interesting post. Personally, I think the greatest obstacle to freedom is the popular perception of the nature of mankind. Today, most people see humans as being born good and turning to evil only after poor potty training or abuse. Adam Smith had a very different view of man's nature. His concept of freedom was anchored in the traditional Christian view of man, even though Smith didn't appear to be very religious. The traditional Christrian view of man's nature is that it is a mixture of good and evil with a tendency toward evil. Parenting, church, and school can influence people toward the good, but cannot change human nature. Only God can do that. This Christian view of mankind dominated the thinking of even irreligious people during Smith's time. If anyone had suggested that the state could change mankind's nature they would have been mercilessly ridiculed.

  Smith's "Moral Sentiments" was an effort to figure out how to create a moral society, given the nature of man. "Wealth of Nations" was his application of those principles to economics. Knowing that nothing human could change man's nature, Smith proposed the free market as the best means of limiting the damage that evil people can cause. Competition will run the greedy businessman out of business unless he can get the state on his side to protect him from competition.

  The view of human nature changed with Saint-Simon's invention of socialism (see Hayek's "Counter-Revolution in Science"). Socialists, most of whom were atheists, promoted the modern view of human nature, that mankind is born good and turns to evil only because of abuse or bad potty training methodology. For socialists, the greatest abuser and oppressor of all time is private property. If we could get rid of property and have the state create society from freshly scraped ground on the basis of science, then we can change human nature back to the purity with which every human is born.

  Socialism was never just an economic system as some think. It was always about changing the economic system which would then change the nature of mankind and rid it of all evil tendencies. If you really believed what Saint-Simon believed, wouldn't you be willing to break a few eggs to achieve the perfect society that he claimed we could have, and which socialism still holds out to all mankind? Socialism is supposed to rid the planet of evil of all kinds! All that Smith and all succeeding capitalists can offer is a world in which the damage that evil can cause is limited. The reality of capitalism at its best cannot compare with the utopian dream of socialism.

  Today, capitalism still depends on Smith's view of human nature, even though capitalists and libertarians don't recognize it. If we will win the battle, we have to force socialists to face the reality that society cannot fix human nature. Whether you're religious or atheist, human nature is what it is and we can't change it.

  Published: November 13, 2009 8:19 AM

• Paul Stephens

  One thing that bothers me in these discussions is people's view of "socialism." Have any of you actually met, taken a course from, or otherwise heard the arguments for socialism from a real socialist? It doesn't seem so.
  Socialism is Christian. Socialism is Islamic. Socialism is scientific and humanistic. Socialism is democratic. And most of all, Socialism is egalitarian.
  These are all good things. What does "capitalism" have to recommend it besides banksters, pull-peddlars, a Parliament of Whores, a nation of drug addicts, and the Military-industrial-prison complex? Capitalism is here! We don't need to hear anything more in favor of it.
  Dump Capitalism. Defend Freedom. They are polar opposites, I'm afraid.

  Published: November 13, 2009 9:11 AM

• newson

  one hundred million victims say you're wrong, paul stephens.

  http://www.scribd.com/doc/3398379/Black-Book-of-Communism

  socialism is not charity. the decalogue condemns theft. using force or threats to seize others' property is theft.

  egalitarian is inhuman, and so utopic. fidel castro is in the forbes rich list.

  socialism and freedom are oil and water. so is corporativism, which is increasingly the paradigm of america and the western world.

  Published: November 13, 2009 9:44 AM

• Bala

  Paul Stephens,

  Just Google on "The Communist Manifesto" and read it. Somewhere in that document, it says

  " the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. "

  Now, do we have a definition of what we are talking of? It helps to pause to think before shooting ones mouth off.

  This is where I found it

  http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

  Published: November 13, 2009 9:53 AM

• Fallon

  Paul,

  Socialism may come wrapped in many colorful packages, e.g. "Christian", "Islamic", "scientific", "humanistic", "democratic". An analytical framework has to see beyond these labels- cut through the moralistic promises of plenty- and take measure of just how far individual ownership has been or will be displaced by government control in all these schemes. Socialism, too, as a word, unfortunately, conveys no solid meaning without context. What you may be describing as Socialism might be described by Mises as "interventionism", the destructive instability created by government marked by incomplete vitiation of individual property right.

  Given this propertarian baseline to work from it becomes apparent that your blaming "capitalism", private ownership of the means of production, for current woes, looks quite confused and misleading.

  Published: November 13, 2009 10:05 AM

• Raimondas

  Dear atheists in what you trust?

  Published: November 13, 2009 12:41 PM

• Bruce Koerber

  Fundamentalist:

  What we can change is our interpretation or the interpretation that we have adopted. To do that we have to step back and ask the question: Is it an ego-driven interpretation?

  Whether we are able to assess this question correctly or not determines where we go from there.

  Our quest, I assume, is to free ourselves from ego-driven interpretation and to rid humanity of the blight of ego-driven interventionism.

  Published: November 13, 2009 12:58 PM

• Charlie

  Paul's comment illustrates the point made in Lew's article that most people don't really have a good conception these terms (capitalism, socialism, etc.). Many seem to have only the emotive response that they've been brought up to associate with them.

  This leads me to wonder whether it'd be most pragmatic to simply quit the use of the most emotionally charged terms. You'd never be able to convince Michael Moore that capitalism is anything but exploitative, for instance.

  If we boil them down to their essences, then -- in the Austrian-Libertarian tradition at least -- capitalism means freedom, and government means violence. Most people don't see things this way though.

  Freedom and violence are concepts that exist in cultures and languages the world over, and, in general, elicit the same emotional responses. That is, "freedom == good," and "violence == wrong."

  I don't know if the most despotic and manipulative government in the world can make "freedom == slavery" or "war == peace" in the hearts of the masses. But, alas, there are many historical instances of these concepts being overturned, at least where they fall outside the locus of an individual's immediate experience. That is, where the violence or losses of freedom happen "far away" and to strangers.

  My main point is that in the preface of any discussions on these matters we must ensure that the audience understands what we mean by "capitalism" and "government." Only then can we show that, in every case, government means violence, resulting in hardship (economic and otherwise), and that freedom (capitalism) results in good.

  Published: November 13, 2009 1:36 PM

• George

  Guys! Whether you like it or not... "Capitalism" is a black and tainted word today, just like "liberal" and "conservative". Words matter. Why you insist on using a term associated with a slowly decaying system is beyond me. You sound like the communists who say we have never had true communism. Stop using old tainted words and start with something fresh... Voluntaryism... Dynmaic govt... Free and open markets as opposed to central planning!

  Published: November 14, 2009 12:19 AM

• Sick of Libs

  Libertarianism is wankerism. You sit around and pat yourselves on the back and marvel at how smart you all are instead of doing something productive to effect change.
  I absolutely despise Lew Rockwell. If his purported views were understood by the rest of the population, the scumbags in DC and on Wall Steet would be tarred and feathered and we might have a truly free market economy. But instead of trying to persuade those with the most likely chance of being enlightened (the conservative majority of Americans), he constantly ridicules them. The average person looking for insight into the economy who stumbles onto one of his articles is not going to be impressed by some guy calling him a moron, a baby killer, idiot, fool, etc. He is going to assume Libertarians are the idiots and move on. Lew does a great job of driving people away from the truth - he's probably a closet communist. Consider the line: " jailing political dissidents, crushing the left wing on campus"

  What political dissidents are in jail? Try Scooter Libby, jailed by the LEFT.

  How has the left wing been crushed on campus? That is just a moronically stupid thing to say.

  Libertarians might compose a few percent of the population (their candidate got less than half of one percent in the 2008 presidential election. Why not try to educate those most likely see the world your way - the conservative majority - instead of doing your best to alienate them.

  Smugly sitting in the corner and telling each other how stupid the rest of the world is may make you all feel smart and superior but it doesn't do sh!t to change the world.

  Personally, I'm deleting my Mises link and moving on too.

  Published: November 15, 2009 1:02 PM

• newson

  to "sick of libs":

  http://mises.org/story/2892

  Published: November 15, 2009 4:38 PM